I have read a bit into the subject, looking at the histories of Britain, its colonies and of European history.

I have this question to ask to discuss:

Were the American Colonies justified in declaring independence from Britain?

I personally think that for the reason of freedom, was actually very poorly justified, and actually damaged Liberal movements for greater representation in governments and enfranchisement of people.

Firstly, is that Britain had one of the freest governance systems in Europe. Granted, it was a Republican Oligarchy with a few of the rising Bourgeoisie who were gradually getting in. However, in much of the rest of Europe, most countries were ran as Autocratic Kingdoms (Poland-Lithuania being an exception, and even then it was a puppet state of the Tsars.) that greatly suppressed individual freedoms and rights for most peoples. Britain also had corpus habeas in place at the time, and was less restrictive on the press than other European states at the time.

Secondly, a large majority of the population of the colonies was actually quite ambivalent towards Britain. The Boston Tea Party was treated with some shock by the colonies themselves, and Ben Franklin himself said that the destroyed tea should actually have been repaid. The Boston massacre was also a case whereby a large crowd of persons cornered a small number of British soldiers against a wall, pelting them with various objects until the soldiers responded with a few gunshots. The soldiers were tried on manslaughter, and even defended for their actions, partly on account of self defence against an angry mob. The British government however, badly managed the dealings with the radicals, and allowed them to convince residents of the colonies to support their cause for independence. The taxes themselves were also quite low, with the average British man paying a far greater deal in taxes than his American counterpart.

Fourthly, I believe that it actually damaged political movements in Europe for greater freedoms. During the War of Independence, the autocratic states of Europe saw it as a chance to destabilise Britain by providing military assistance, and the incidence of the Gordon riots of 1780 (Which were riots against laws that reduced official persecution of religious minorities) convinced a number in Europe that the freedoms established by the (Relatively) democratic British government destabilised the country. Democratic movements were suppressed as a result by the crowned heads of Europe, in turn helping them to become more radical in the process. When the French revolution broke out (Partly due to the success of the American war of independence and the massive deficit caused by helping the early USA), the rest of the countries of Europe enacted extremely harsh laws, and Britain in turn suspended habeas corpus as Europe collapsed into war and revolution. Although a massive part of this was due to ongoing social and economic changes as the Industrial revolution was starting to arrive, there is little doubt over the War of Independence contributing to this.

Finally, life in the early USA was worse in some regards than it had been under loose British rule. In order to help the American government manage the budget, a large amount of money was printed that led to rather high inflation, with soldiers wages constantly declining during this time as a result that led to a number of hardships on the American military.
The government, by 1780, was forced to requisition food in order to keep the army running. This inefficient system barely kept the American military. The American economy suffered, along with its people for several decades, and only started to improve significantly in the early 19th century, partly due to the cotton plantations that were growing around this time.

That is my argument, in that there was no great justification for the war of independence, and I would like to see what others might have to say with regards to this.

The colonists were not represented by an elected official, and they had no say in the decisions made by the British government. They had no right to be taxed at all.

Also, on a slightly off topic note, there were several attempts made to pay for the tea destroyed from various merchants around Boston who were being bankrupted by the closure of the port, but they were rejected by the British officials because they wanted the payment to come directly from those responsible, an impossible request because nobody knew exactly who was responsible.

The colonists were not represented by an elected official, and they had no say in the decisions made by the British government. They had no right to be taxed at all.

There were also new industrial cities growing in Britain, and old towns declining around this time too. Granted that the American colonies had poor representation in British politics, but neither did these growing industrial towns/cities until the 1832 great reform act.

To give an idea of how badly represented the British people were, Old Sarum was literally a hill with two members of parliament to represent it until it was abolished in 1832.

There were also new industrial cities growing in Britain, and old towns declining around this time too. Granted that the American colonies had poor representation in British politics, but neither did these growing industrial towns/cities until the 1832 great reform act.

And? Those towns you speak of should have fought for their rights as well.

They did, through petitions and gradual reforms. However, attempts at this were blocked due to the French Revolution and Napoleonic wars which delayed things for several decades.

Once that was over, the growing bourgeoisie was able to press for reforms.

Think about the American colonies, though. They had developed their own cultural identities. They were across the damned ocean, on another continent. They had become self sufficient, and yet they were being taxed and deprived of proper representation by their patron state. Why stick to that? They were effectively their own nations as it was, long before the Revolution.

What they did was just. They were a people lacking proper process from their overseers, while those overseers enforced damaging restrictions on them. They were already their own people, so it's not really anything new, they'd just be getting a new flag and less taxes. Declaring themselves a sovereign nation just made it official.

Think about the American colonies, though. They had developed their own cultural identities. They were across the damned ocean, on another continent. They had become self sufficient, and yet they were being taxed and deprived of proper representation by their patron state. Why stick to that? They were effectively their own nations as it was, long before the Revolution.

What they did was just. They were a people lacking proper process from their overseers, while those overseers enforced damaging restrictions on them. They were already their own people, so it's not really anything new, they'd just be getting a new flag and less taxes. Declaring themselves a sovereign nation just made it official.

The problem however, is that to pay for their new state being established, taxes actually rose to maintain it. The currency was also held in poor regard, and after hyperinflation hit, many resorted to bartering.

They were also not as self sufficient as one may think, for they also depended on exporting goods to Europe and importing various other goods to maintain themselves. During the Napoleonic Wars when trade embargoes were put into place at various times, the American economy took a very bad hit.

The problem however, is that to pay for their new state being established, taxes actually rose to maintain it. The currency was also held in poor regard, and after hyperinflation hit, many resorted to bartering.

They were also not as self sufficient as one may think, for they also depended on exporting goods to Europe and importing various other goods to maintain themselves. During the Napoleonic Wars when trade embargoes were put into place at various times, the American economy took a very bad hit.

That's not the point though. The point was that they were paying taxes and duties to the British government and they had no say in the matter. Even if things became worse off after the war, they were their own people now.

The problem however, is that to pay for their new state being established, taxes actually rose to maintain it. The currency was also held in poor regard, and after hyperinflation hit, many resorted to bartering.

They were also not as self sufficient as one may think, for they also depended on exporting goods to Europe and importing various other goods to maintain themselves. During the Napoleonic Wars when trade embargoes were put into place at various times, the American economy took a very bad hit.

So? The point is, as King Tiger put it, not simply that they were paying the taxes, but that they were paying the taxes to a nation that could give less of a shit about them. The natal United States was nothing more than a resource gathering colony and source of income.

At least, now, the citizenry's taxes would be going towards keeping their nation afloat, and going back into their benefit. Not only that, but they'd have a say in where and how it's spent, as they now were an active part of the new government. At least, on a fundamental level.

Edited:

And when I say self sufficient, I mean in terms of industry. The southern states were an effective bread basket, and the north had a fairly booming industrial complex.

The point is that the colonies had the ability to advance themselves in the world as a greater power. Regardless of whether or not the British were being "bullies", their hold on the colonies was obviously tenuous enough for them to lose it in a war, justifying the creation of the USA.

Here are the specific reasons listed in the Declaration of Independence for America removing British rule from themselves. Figured you can't really discuss this topic without this list:

>He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
>He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
>He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
>He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
>He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
>He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
>He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
>He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
>He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
>He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
>He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
>He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
>He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their

Acts of pretended Legislation:
>>For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
>>For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
>>For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
>>For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
>>For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
>>For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
>>For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
>>For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
>>For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

>He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
>He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
>He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
>He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
>He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Finally, life in the early USA was worse in some regards than it had been under loose British rule. In order to help the American government manage the budget, a large amount of money was printed that led to rather high inflation, with soldiers wages constantly declining during this time as a result that led to a number of hardships on the American military.
The government, by 1780, was forced to requisition food in order to keep the army running. This inefficient system barely kept the American military. The American economy suffered, along with its people for several decades, and only started to improve significantly in the early 19th century, partly due to the cotton plantations that were growing around this time.

That is my argument, in that there was no great justification for the war of independence, and I would like to see what others might have to say with regards to this.

To be fair about the economy going down during the war - have you ever heard of a country's economy doing well while there were battles waged all across it? The Americans had virtually no navy during the war (save a few small, relatively worthless ships) and so England successfully commanded trade to the colonies (not to mention occupying the three top major ports of Boston, NYC and Philadelphia).

That, along with intense infighting between American Patriots and American Loyalists, it's sort of hard to have an improving economy.

The problem however, is that to pay for their new state being established, taxes actually rose to maintain it. The currency was also held in poor regard, and after hyperinflation hit, many resorted to bartering.

They were also not as self sufficient as one may think, for they also depended on exporting goods to Europe and importing various other goods to maintain themselves. During the Napoleonic Wars when trade embargoes were put into place at various times, the American economy took a very bad hit.

I think you're focusing entirely too much on the economics. For one, a people have the right to self governance on the basis that they're a separate people, alone. Sure there were thousands of American Loyalists, but there were plenty enough Patriots to warrant independence as a people, too.

That other governments weren't as bad isn't a really good reason for your argument, OP. There were numerous violations on civil liberties, as said before.

The real reason people got mad was the sudden reduction in rights following the French and Indian War, as I'm sure you know. Salutary Neglect came to an end, and the British began heavyhanded rule, which included taxes to pay for tremendous war debts. God I feel like I'm in high school US History all over again.

That other governments weren't as bad isn't a really good reason for your argument, OP. There were numerous violations on civil liberties, as said before.

The real reason people got mad was the sudden reduction in rights following the French and Indian War, as I'm sure you know. Salutary Neglect came to an end, and the British began heavyhanded rule, which included taxes to pay for tremendous war debts. God I feel like I'm in high school US History all over again.

Agreed. The colony's reward for helping in the Seven Years War was only more English rule, which is no reward at all.

You simply do NOT place your troops into the homes of civilians, without their consent; especially when day after day they feel you're more of a foreign tyrant than a distant brother.

The colonies practically ruled themselves until after Britain won the 7 years war against France or the French and Indian war. Britain was left with huge debt after this war and they looked towards the colonies as a way of getting it paid off. The colonists as I said before have been ruling themselves and have ignored many of Parliaments laws, when Britain enacted the navigation acts, townsend acts, and the stamp acts, the colonists were now being forced to obey parliaments laws which up until now they have basically ignored. They colonists wanted a fair representation in parliament since they had no current say in to all the taxes and acts that were being forced upon them.

I think they were justified in starting the revolution, everything they said was ignored by parliament and after they won the war and had independence the start of the United States was rough but look at where it is now, the United States is one of the worlds super powers.

One problem with the idea that people in the colonies wanted to rule themselves, was that a huge number of people were still loyal to the British government. The Declaration of Independence actually harmed the movement for greater self rule, and convinced many people to support the British. A great deal of people on both sides hated the war, seeing it as a civil war between brothers.

A number of the taxes enacted on the colonies were also repealed after a while, due to the noted unpopularity of them.

The taxes on the colonies was much lower than was actually fair to maintain the military protection for the colonies. The military forces protecting the colonies were also protecting them against the absolutist influence of the Spanish or French, who would readily sweep in and conquer the colonies given half the chance, and impose harsh rule on them as opposed to the British.

In a way, the British losing the colonies was a positive to the British Empire, because they didn't have to spend so much money maintaining what was effectively a negative asset for them.

One problem with the idea that people in the colonies wanted to rule themselves, was that a huge number of people were still loyal to the British government. The Declaration of Independence actually harmed the movement for greater self rule, and convinced many people to support the British. A great deal of people on both sides hated the war, seeing it as a civil war between brothers.

A number of the taxes enacted on the colonies were also repealed after a while, due to the noted unpopularity of them.

The taxes on the colonies was much lower than was actually fair to maintain the military protection for the colonies. The military forces protecting the colonies were also protecting them against the absolutist influence of the Spanish or French, who would readily sweep in and conquer the colonies given half the chance, and impose harsh rule on them as opposed to the British.

In a way, the British losing the colonies was a positive to the British Empire, because they didn't have to spend so much money maintaining what was effectively a negative asset for them.

This is pretty much true. the USA would have gained independence eventually any way, especially under the rule of William Gladstone who granted the colonies a lot more autonomy.

One problem with the idea that people in the colonies wanted to rule themselves, was that a huge number of people were still loyal to the British government. The Declaration of Independence actually harmed the movement for greater self rule, and convinced many people to support the British. A great deal of people on both sides hated the war, seeing it as a civil war between brothers.

A number of the taxes enacted on the colonies were also repealed after a while, due to the noted unpopularity of them.

The taxes on the colonies was much lower than was actually fair to maintain the military protection for the colonies. The military forces protecting the colonies were also protecting them against the absolutist influence of the Spanish or French, who would readily sweep in and conquer the colonies given half the chance, and impose harsh rule on them as opposed to the British.

In a way, the British losing the colonies was a positive to the British Empire, because they didn't have to spend so much money maintaining what was effectively a negative asset for them.

Can you explain to me how it "harmed" the movement for greater self rule when it created absolute self rule?

Also: Just because they repealed the taxes doesn't mean they no longer had the power to levy more taxes later on, at their will.

And England had just defeated France in war, how was France going to "sweep" them up? And by how hard the Americans fought in the American Revolution (enough to defeat England, one of the greatest, if not greatest military powers of the time), do you honestly think Spain could "sweep up" the colonies?

Britain had the last laugh with France after the revolution, their monarchy and most of the countries nobility were killed in the revolution, France and other European nations only joined in to try and destabilize British colonies. Once the war was over they could of cared less about America in a lot of regards (though the statue of liberty was a nice gesture).

The American revolution was mainly about economics and greed of the elite classes living in the colonies, but it was also largely about liberty and unfair rule.

I think if we didn't have a war for independence, we would have turned out a lot like Canada, with a Governor-General, a parliament, and a Prime Minister. That actually wouldn't have been half bad in my opinion.

I think if we didn't have a war for independence, we would have turned out a lot like Canada, with a Governor-General, a parliament, and a Prime Minister. That actually wouldn't have been half bad in my opinion.

We most likely would have had the same Governor-General, parliament and Prime Minister, as well.

Can you explain to me how it "harmed" the movement for greater self rule when it created absolute self rule?

Well it harmed movements in other countries by effectively showing that firstly, Radicals had taken over in America, leading it into ruin for the rest of the 18th century. Democratic movements in Britain, her other colonies, and in Europe were retarded as a result by this.

Secondly, it damaged the reputation of the British government (Which was comparatively democratic). Absolutist states in Europe used the American revolution, Gordon Riots, etc as evidence to show that Democracy was inherently weak and that its imposition lead to instability.

The result of this of course, is that the autocracies throughout Europe cracked down on movements calling for political reform, forcing them in turn to radicalise, and then causing even greater problems down the line. The French revolution was a horribly bloody affair that could have been avoided by reform rather than revolution.

Well it harmed movements in other countries by effectively showing that firstly, Radicals had taken over in America, leading it into ruin for the rest of the 18th century. Democratic movements in Britain, her other colonies, and in Europe were retarded as a result by this.

Secondly, it damaged the reputation of the British government (Which was comparatively democratic). Absolutist states in Europe used the American revolution, Gordon Riots, etc as evidence to show that Democracy was inherently weak and that its imposition lead to instability.

The result of this of course, is that the autocracies throughout Europe cracked down on movements calling for political reform, forcing them in turn to radicalise, and then causing even greater problems down the line. The French revolution was a horribly bloody affair that could have been avoided by reform rather than revolution.

Autocracies would have used any excuse to crack down on democratic reforms. They just happen to use the American Revolution as an example. That's hardly America's fault. And would really expect the revolutionaries to say, "Gee, we better not try for independence, we might harm someone else's cause"?

Well it harmed movements in other countries by effectively showing that firstly, Radicals had taken over in America, leading it into ruin for the rest of the 18th century. Democratic movements in Britain, her other colonies, and in Europe were retarded as a result by this.

So the American Revolution isn't justified because others failed to correctly imitate it?

Well it harmed movements in other countries by effectively showing that firstly, Radicals had taken over in America, leading it into ruin for the rest of the 18th century. Democratic movements in Britain, her other colonies, and in Europe were retarded as a result by this.

How does the fact that it harmed other movements mean that it harmed self rule in America. The American Revolution was not some worldwide quest for global liberty. And I would like to see some examples of these "retarded" democratic movements.

Secondly, it damaged the reputation of the British government (Which was comparatively democratic). Absolutist states in Europe used the American revolution, Gordon Riots, etc as evidence to show that Democracy was inherently weak and that its imposition lead to instability.

The result of this of course, is that the autocracies throughout Europe cracked down on movements calling for political reform, forcing them in turn to radicalise, and then causing even greater problems down the line. The French revolution was a horribly bloody affair that could have been avoided by reform rather than revolution.

Do you honestly believe that the fact that "it damaged the reputation of the British government" had any effect at all on the possible outcome of democratic movements in other nations? Really? So they cited Britain and said this: "Radicals have taken over in America! (I'm not sure where you got that from or how it was necessarily a negative, but whatever) This means that Britain's democracy is weak, and so democracy in our nation would not work. We are now going to radicalize our government in order to stop these democratic movements." Do you honestly believe that that is what happened and that is why democratic movements in Europe failed? Seriously?

And your knowledge of the French Revolution is lacking if you believe that it could have been solved without blood.

I have a friend who regulars a British run Freelancer forum. Every 4th of July he posts how he is thankful that his country is no longer under British rule. his posts get deleted every single year, its a wonder they haven't simply banned him.

I feel it doesn't really matter why a given colony would desire independence from the motherland. If they want to be free, for better or for worse, it's their choice to be free, and if it works out for the better than sweet....and if it means they end up dying off, oh well.